Apparently, the science was too popular, so what do these fools do? Alienate their readers of course:
Starting today, PopularScience.com will no longer accept comments on new articles. Here’s why.
Comments can be bad for science. That’s why, here at PopularScience.com, we’re shutting them off.
The stupid, it burns like a magnesium flare.
The go on to quote some study as the reason, and blame climate change discussions:
A politically motivated, decades-long war on expertise has eroded the popular consensus on a wide variety of scientifically validated topics. Everything, from evolution to the origins of climate change, is mistakenly up for grabs again. Scientific certainty is just another thing for two people to “debate” on television. And because comments sections tend to be a grotesque reflection of the media culture surrounding them, the cynical work of undermining bedrock scientific doctrine is now being done beneath our own stories, within a website devoted to championing science.
Read it all here: http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-09/why-were-shutting-our-comments
Jquip says: “There’s a regularly used aphorism that runs along the lines that Empiricism is a Sin in Religion and a Virtue in Science. It ought be a regular notion as well that Appeals to Authority are a Virtue in Politics and a Sin in Science. Or, in far better words:
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” — Richard Feynman”
This is not quite the case. Historically great abuses have been introduced into relgion through the lack of access to original texts, the refusal to allow translation of texts into living languages, the handling of texts by “experts,” and the lack of literacy of the people.
Access to data and behind the scenes “adjustments” to data by an interpreting class has bedeviled religions as much as science. For example, the abuses of priests in Hinduism (such as taking a family cow away for sacrifice and steak dinner), and the many complications introduced into Hindu practice by the preists, eventually lead to the reforms of Jainism and Buddhism. The Reformation movement also insists on the ability of all people to read and understand the Old and New Testaments for themselves. This ability to read and practice without and expert class of philologists or priests is exactly parallel to problems introduced by a protected class of experts, academics, and scientists; historically both religion and science have monumental struggles and issues regarding empirical verification and accountability.
See Johanna’s post above.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/24/quote-of-the-week-the-death-of-popular-science/#comment-1425930
We should generate a new “Orwell 1984 Truth Award” just to allocate it to these leftist religious drones that are of the opinion that everything they believe is beyond question. It does appear to be their general mindset across the board. One quick check in the White House, CAGW and Feminism all confirms their severe case of cognitive dissonance, unfortunately.
I think the concern about “expertise” reveals the real culprits: lawyers and politicians. “Expert” and “expertise” are really meaningful only in legal or legislative venues. Neither term is meaningful or has any weight in science. If you consider “green” agendas, then where do we see the greatest expenditure of effort? Certainly not in research.
So…POPSCI is now taking the position that the Catholic Church had on Galileo.
They didn’t want any competing opinions either.
i would think the fact AW has little or no climate science credentials is a major plus in the debate on cAGW,as it appears the most widely publicised “climate” scientists are an ignorant bunch with their heads so far up their own arses they are unable to observe the non warming,non melting ice caps,non acidic oceans and near hurricane free world we live in.
So then, when the “popular consensus” says that the Earth is Warming, everything’s OK, but when that same “popular consensus” turns against them, it’s clearly the work of Deniers and Heretics/
This is typical of things to come, especially with obamacare – just wait. A few years ago, just after the passage of obamacare, some Russian wrote in Pravda, “The Americans have not yet begun to suffer.” He was right; just wait – life is going to be an ever-loving nightmare for many of us in the coming years.
In mid-1903, the popular scientific consensus was that Man could not fly, too…
I was a reader of Popular Science since 1959, and looked forward to every issue. But in the last few decades, its editorial staff became populated with trendy geeks, articles began to look like advertisements, and advertisements began to look like articles. Illustrations of future concepts showed only that the illustrator had no understanding of the basic science, but knew how to make things look “cool.” I had to quit.
Now, I refer to them as “Popular Seance.” (Right up there with Unscientific Unamerican.)
i have to take issue with Wmasaw. its got nothing to do with left and right. due to the amount of money required to gain an elite “education” in the western world these days,most of these “climate “scientists.particularly the younger ones are silver spoon daddies girls and mummies boys that would probably have gone into the social sciences if not for the cAGW meme.
despite the education many will not be clever enough to work in the private sector, a bit like uk NGO,s being filled with the thicker kids of british societal elite,and their parents will be monied voters of the right persuasion.they have absolute faith in their peers and the system that has indoctrinated them .
they like to think what they do is for the poor ordinary people,and they hope to go down in history as being someone who mattered .they see themselves as saving the world,and due to the media attention believe they have some kind of rock star quality.
i doubt you could find a real lefty lentil eater amongst them,though it may be the image some project.
goldminor says:
September 25, 2013 at 1:36 am
—————————————-
Sorry for not filling in a bit more of an explanation for the post. It was early in the morning for me. In the last week, I had commented a few times times about the increased censorship at some sites, plus the increased rhetoric by the warmists over the last month as the date for the release of their ‘bible’ has loomed ever closer. They really are in a ‘full court press’ at the moment. So it was in relationship to the subject of censorship that this article brings up, plus the current all out push from the warmists that I posted that. Next time, I will just use a link and a descriptive comment. Sorry for leaving doubt about any negative intentions.
Hey, Gold Minor, not that you were apologizing to me personally, but, wanted you to know that this morning when I read your post, I was pretty sure (given what I know of your character and views as revealed on WUWT) that what it turned out you meant was what you were trying to say.
LOL, I was tired last night, too — I read a post just above one of mine, then, within 30 SECONDS, called “Alan Robertson” “Alan Robinson!”
Get started on that jogging? Go for it, Gold! Set short goals for a couple of weeks, then, gradually increase the distance, just like you did when you began running years ago. YOU CAN DO IT! (And you have at least one fan standing beside the road, cheering you on and who will be asking you how you are doing ….., mm, hm .)#(:)).
For several years I was a frequent commenter on popsci as laurenra7, usually responding to articles on global warming because the information presented as “science” was always biased towards the liberal, global warming alarmist position and laden with misinformation. I kept my comments polite and frequently provided links to sources to allow readers to verify for themselves what the global temperature and paleoclimate graphs really showed, hoping that they would would gain some perspective on the issue, and that the writers, typcially Dan Nosowitz or Rebecca Boyle (and others) would pay attention and modify their views (which never happened). The links often pointed to web pages and graphs on WUWT, which has a wonderful Resource page to quickly find graphs and original sources.
When PopSci’s editor posted her reasoning for shutting down comments, I immediately thought of WUWT’s comment policy and the contrast between a website that wants to further scientific knowledge, inviting opposing comments and even guest bloggers with opposing views (WUWT), and one that purports to be a science website but increasingly wants to close its ears to science that challenges the preconceived notions of its editors (PopSci).
I was gratified to note that over recent months and years the comments increasingly criticized the global warming alarmist position and the biased opinions of the writers; Dan Nosowitz being by far the most opinionated and self-deluded into believing his most egregious “articles” were science rather than liberal commentary. The ironic thing is that Dan probably increased readership because we all watched with excitement to see what silliness he would post next so we could correct it.
Too bad for PopSci. Rather than poll their readers to find out whether the comments feature was wanted or not, they simply made a judgement call based on their liberal Manhattan groupthink. It will be interesting to see how their web page views do in the coming months. My guess is that their viewers are more conservative than not and that the comments enabled them to stand PopSci and its frequently distasteful forays into liberal opinion presented as “science.”
Popular Science shutting off comments reminds me of the Pope silencing Galileo on the sun-centered — not Earth-centered — solar system. If it does not back up what they believe, they don’t want to hear it and they don’t want anyone else to, either.
James Taranto in todays Wall Street Journal, commenting on Popular Science’s use of the term ‘Scientific Doctrine’: (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303796404579097192784900688.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion)
“All scientific knowledge is empirically based and tentative; “scientific doctrine” is an oxymoron, and “scientific certainty” a relative term. LaBarre’s comments exemplify the danger of religion’s decline. Science is corrupted when people look to it to provide them with a belief system.”
I went over to leave a comment but it looks like they have been disabled.
@ur momisugly Lauren R. — Good for you to pose such powerful arguments defending truth in science that all the Fantasy Science Club members could do was to effectively say, “Shut up!” In other words, you won the debate. (Changing their minds was never an option — THAT will take a miracle.)
@ur momisugly Jud — Good for you to want to fight for truth in science (or some kind of truth, I’m assuming — heh, maybe you were just going to remind them of a few facts about suppression of speech throughout history, who did it and why…). Lol, “looks like” they ran away from the battlefield. Losers.
I think this sentence in the Popular Science statement is very telling:
If you carry out those results to their logical end–commenters shape public opinion; public opinion shapes public policy; public policy shapes how and whether and what research gets funded–you start to see why we feel compelled to hit the “off” switch.
So shutting down comments is really not about science, it’s about money. Why am I not surprised.
Actually, in the case of Popular Science most of the comments are diminished in comparison to the main article. However in a case of Wattsup most of the comments actually improve the article and so I would think that for Wattsup, we would want the comments. This is very different than the Popular Science case, where they have real scientists writing the articles.
Pippen Kool says:
September 25, 2013 at 8:21 pm
Which of these current top stories in PopSci were written by “real scientists”?
http://www.popsci.com/
Top Stories
Why We’re Shutting Off Our Comments
Your Autumn Guide To Apples [Infographic]
These Magnetic Nanobots Could Carry Drugs Into Your Brain
Erase Bad Memories In Your Sleep
Are Acid Flashbacks A Myth?
7 Fantastic Vintage Anatomy Drawings
Valve Announces Multiple Steam Consoles, Will Not Show Them
Why Doesn’t The iPhone 5S Have NFC?
11 Terrifying Childcare Inventions From The Early 20th Century
Chemistry’s Biggest Loser: Official Atomic Weights Change For 19 Elements
Mean, Sexist Gorilla Gets Kicked Out Of Dallas Zoo
I perdicks a huge circulation crash.
To be fair (though it isn’t really necessary), Pop Sci isn’t a magazine written by scientists – the way Scientific American used to be, and American Scientist is. It was once a magazine to bring news of science and technology to the masses. I have a couple of P.S. from the 50s and 60s. (The “flying car” they wrote of hasn’t quite got here yet.) I haven’t read it since then.
However, Pippen gives the writers too much credit. They’re writers about science, and their job is to try to make high-technology understandable by the average reader.
It’s the editors at PopSci who are suffering from extreme close-mindedness.
Scientists are good at science. Only a few of them – like E. O. Wilson, among others – are good writers.
The popular hipster blog BoingBoing.net is parroting the standard view of skeptics as mere mavericks, to support the desperate last gasp of Popular Science, and commenters are writing their own Ph.D. thesis over there now too, devoid of any climate facts but long on popular psychology and applied existentialism:
“Popular Science has an evidence-based reason for shutting down its comment section
Maggie Koerth-Baker at 10:25 am Wed, Sep 25, 2013
Yesterday, the Popular Science website announced that it would no longer allow readers to comment on new stories. Why? Because science, says online editor Suzanne LeBarre, who cited research showing how a minority of uncivilized, vitriolic comments can skew readers’ understanding of the content of a story and contribute to political/ideological polarizations of opinion. Mother Jones wrote about the same study more in-depth earlier this year.”
http://boingboing.net/2013/09/25/popular-science-has-an-evidenc.html
As someone who is fully convinced of the general truth of modern evolutionary theory (with plenty of room for new understandings and discoveries), the idea of silencing creationists and Intelligent Design proponents (beyond controlling spam and flame wars) is repugnant to me. So this offends be in both ways–as one being silenced and as one watching my opponents silenced on my side’s “behalf”.
Well, Snake Oil Baron, that is because you have what they do not:
integrity,
strength,
and love (for your neighbor).
They have: fraud, weakness, and contempt (for their neighbor).